The result of Ruby official logo contest

Ruby
61

On 11/1/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

Darn. I thought it was a pretty good joke, if you were serious. More
high-class, self-deprecating puns like that in the titles of technical
texts would be a plus, I think.

I thought it was a brilliant multiple pun, irrespective of its
seriousness :slight_smile:

martin

62

"but you could just as easily redefine it into something not Web 2.0. "

I think that last logo is a bit non-characteristic for Ruby though.

63

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 03:37:41AM +0900, Martin DeMello wrote:

Darn. I thought it was a pretty good joke, if you were serious. More
high-class, self-deprecating puns like that in the titles of technical
texts would be a plus, I think.

I thought it was a brilliant multiple pun, irrespective of its seriousness :slight_smile:

Good to know I’m not the only one who thought so.

64

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158

Oh, that is excellent.

65

Willem Källman wrote:

Yukihiro M. wrote:

Those comments made me down. X-<

Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158

This is the best version I’ve seen so far. My GF hates it though (:

mortee

66

On 11/2/07, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:03:00PM +0900, Austin Z. wrote:

Ugh. That’s the worst. I don’t know why people think that Web 2.0
logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
… to 2006.
Ignore the surroundings and fluff for a moment. The core image is
simple, elegant, versatile, and easily slotted into any general-purpose
application of a logo (favicons, t-shirts, stickers, websites, et
cetera). It doesn’t require major modifications to suit it well to
different purposes, and with only minor additions or tweaks can be
adjusted to fit the standards of hipness for any marketing era.

I think the sharp-angled, lying-on-its-drunken-side four-tone ruby in
that logo is neither elegant or versatile. I’d argue about simple;
simplistic, maybe.

It doesn’t look any better than the ubiquitous “beta star” you see on
Web 2.0 sites.

I believe that this so-called “better logo” would need as much work
(or more) to be acceptable.

Sound familiar?

Yeah. All of those positive attributes don’t apply to the logo you like.

-austin

67

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 09:03:00PM +0900, Austin Z. wrote:

Ugh. That’s the worst. I don’t know why people think that Web 2.0
logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
… to 2006.

Ignore the surroundings and fluff for a moment. The core image is
simple, elegant, versatile, and easily slotted into any general-purpose
application of a logo (favicons, t-shirts, stickers, websites, et
cetera). It doesn’t require major modifications to suit it well to
different purposes, and with only minor additions or tweaks can be
adjusted to fit the standards of hipness for any marketing era.

Examples of logos with that sort of timeless flexibility include, but
are
not limited to:

the AT&T “Death Star”
the Windows wavy-window (though they’ve screwed with it a lot)
the Apple apple
the SGI hypercube
the Sun diagonal square (whith the clever “u + n = S” motif)
the Target target

Notice that the AT&T “Death Star” logo has gained a definite
three-dimensional appearance [http://att.com], the Microsoft Windows
wavy-window is now softly center-lit and acquired both a
three-dimensional look and simplified pastel feel
[http://microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx], the Apple apple is looking
mirrored and glossy these days, and even the Target target has acquired
a
drop-reflection somewhere along the way. SGI hs, for some reason,
decided its logo should just be three letters (it looks like crap now),
but Sun’s logo hasn’t really undergone any modifications to fit the new
sense of what catches people’s eyes – though it was well-enough
designed
that it fits in with a color-gradient background on the website
perfectly
anyway [http://sun.com/].

These logos have all gone through a number of incarnations over the
years, to fit the current marketing imagery paradigm, but have largely
remained unmolested in their core design philosophies. They’ve worked
for years, and have contributed to the visibility and recognizability of
the organizations they represent.

These logos have some things in common:

simplicity
elegance
versatility
flexibility of application
easily fit into changing trends in marketing imagery

Sound familiar?

68

Yep,
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
is interesting.

  1. It has some unforseen implied angles.
  2. There is the lack of a box, so it cannot even be out of one.
  3. There is a major edge out of visual reading harmonic, in that it is
    the top left, first part of a western-reading scan.
  4. This promotes the ‘edginess’ of Ruby.
  5. Then there is the lack of alignment of the subText.
  6. (5) Combined with (3) promotes a leaning towards a tipping point.
    Very clever.
  7. This tipping point is left-2-right, which makes taking the entire
    pill a whole bunch easier.
  8. The logo can change over time.

If http://www.ruby-assn.org/ruby-logo.jpg is to be adjusted in any way
my observation is that resorting to any colour approaching Orange is a
desperate last act of marketing. Even in a gradation.
Orange is a washed out mid between red (warming influence) & yellow
(alerting influence). Undecided at best,
Here is one example : http://telstra.com/index.jsp
Another: http://www.orange.com/english/home.php

So many times I have found (& still do) Ruby-lang to be breathtaking,
it would be good if the logo did the same.

MarkT

69

|Chad P.|

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
CP> Oh, that is excellent.
Quite interesting though it works only for those who has seen old
logo (and mentally complementing 2D for 3D), I’m afraid.

70

John J. wrote:

It’s actually quite amusing to read programmers’ quibbling over graphic
design…
it’s about like mom’s arguing the merits of an operating system…

There’s a saying in my country: you don’t have to be a shoemaker in
order to know how your shoes hurt your leg. This is not to say that I
agree or disagree with anything posted in this thread, just that even
programmers may have valid points related to graphic design or anything
else.

mortee

71

On Nov 4, 2007, at 3:25 AM, mortee wrote:

anything
else.

mortee

Oh I don’t doubt that at all. But it is fascinating to read the
comments. Programmers are generally extremely (anal) picky about what
words are used or how to describe something precisely. However, when
it comes to art & design, they generally lack the vocabulary. Of
course, it makes sense, as every field of study has its own jargon
and its own common idioms.

The uninitiated sound like cats talking to dogs.

72

On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 06:59:25AM +0900, Austin Z. wrote:

adjusted to fit the standards of hipness for any marketing era.

I think the sharp-angled, lying-on-its-drunken-side four-tone ruby in
that logo is neither elegant or versatile. I’d argue about simple;
simplistic, maybe.

It doesn’t look any better than the ubiquitous “beta star” you see on
Web 2.0 sites.

I believe that this so-called “better logo” would need as much work
(or more) to be acceptable.

What . . . you prefer clutter?

73

It’s actually quite amusing to read programmers’ quibbling over
graphic design…
it’s about like mom’s arguing the merits of an operating system…

74

On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 05:40:35PM +0900, John J. wrote:

It’s actually quite amusing to read programmers’ quibbling over
graphic design…
it’s about like mom’s arguing the merits of an operating system…

Some of us have actually gone to school for digital graphic design.

75

On Nov 4, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Chad P. wrote:

On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 05:40:35PM +0900, John J. wrote:

It’s actually quite amusing to read programmers’ quibbling over
graphic design…
it’s about like mom’s arguing the merits of an operating system…

Some of us have actually gone to school for digital graphic design.
Sure, there’s no doubt about that, but it’s probably not the majority.
Most of the time developers and designers are in different skin.

76

[email protected] kirjoitti:

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158

Oh, that is excellent.

Hear, hear!

77

Casimir wrote:

[email protected] kirjoitti:

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:07:21PM +0900, Willem K??llman wrote:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158

Oh, that is excellent.

Hear, hear!

Separated at birth?

http://ruby-doc.org/_img/logo-rubydoc.gif

–
James B.

“I was born not knowing and have had only a little
time to change that here and there.”

  • Richard P. Feynman
78

On Nov 4, 2:25 am, [email protected] wrote:

John J. wrote:

It’s actually quite amusing to read programmers’ quibbling over graphic
design…
it’s about like mom’s arguing the merits of an operating system…

There’s a saying in my country: you don’t have to be a shoemaker in
order to know how your shoes hurt your leg. This is not to say that I
agree or disagree with anything posted in this thread, just that even
programmers may have valid points related to graphic design or anything
else.

Indeed. Put far less succinctly:
http://phrogz.net/nodes/criticismwithoutasolution.asp

79

I really like that too. I wish a simple shape was chosen that is
versatile and workable in a lot of different settings.

But sais la vie.

–Jeremy

On Nov 5, 2007 3:53 AM, James B. [email protected] wrote:

James B.

“I was born not knowing and have had only a little
time to change that here and there.”

  • Richard P. Feynman

–
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice

My free Ruby e-book

My blogs:

http://www.rubyinpractice.com/

80

Likewise, some of us have been doing design for a number of years
(even a couple before we were programmers! The horror!), and perhaps
have a bit of “sage” knowledge to share?

sighs

Never mind. We’re apparently all geek programmers with no sense of
style nor understanding of design principles, gestalt, or anything
else related to design whatsoever.

–Jeremy

On Nov 4, 2007 8:41 PM, John J. [email protected]
wrote:

Most of the time developers and designers are in different skin.

–
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice

My free Ruby e-book

My blogs:

http://www.rubyinpractice.com/